Exposing the dangers of the McGuinty/Wynne

In April 2010, Dalton McGuinty was forced to withdraw a radicalized Sex Ed curriculum for Ontario elementary schools, written under then Education Minister Kathleen Wynne, that:

would have taught 6 year olds about the sexual parts of the human body

would have taught 8 year olds about homosexuality and “gender identity” (the idea that it is ok and normal to have a male body but self-identify as a woman, and vice versa).

would have taught 10 year olds that “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” cannot be changed (a myth discredited by 150 years of psychological clinical evidence, plus the existence of thousands of men and women who have changed their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual)

would have given 6th graders instructions on the pleasures of masturbation and vaginal lubrication

would have taught 7th graders about “vaginal [and] anal intercourse”.

McGuinty’s humiliating retreat was the result of public backlash by parents, pro-family leaders like Dr. Charles McVeety of the Canada Family Action Coalition, and various religious leaders including the Catholic Bishops of Ontario.

What parents don’t know is that they are not out of the woods yet. The explicit K-8 Sex Ed curriculum was just one element of a broader and more insidious policy called “The Equity & Inclusive Education Strategy” (henceforth, the EIE Strategy), which will be weaved throughout K- Gr. 12 curriculum and throughout the school environment. The EIE Strategy threatens the inherent right of parents to direct the moral values of their own children, by supplanting your values with the government’s own sexual ideology. It is a program of child indoctrination that may imperil your Charter right to freedom of religion and conscience by teaching your kids ideas which violate your moral and/or religious beliefs.

This EIE Strategy was written under the direction of then Education Minister, Kathleen Wynne, an open lesbian and champion of the gay agenda. For days, McGuinty defended the K-8 Sex Ed curriculum (and thus the strategy), by claiming that his government had “consulted parents groups”.

Who were these parents groups that helped McGuinty/Wynne write such a radical and harmful Sex Ed curriculum? A close examinition of the parties who had been “consulted” by the government reveals a collection of homosexual-activist lobby groups called the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (which includes Egale Canada, the main group responsible for changing the legal definition of marriage in Canada). Do these fringe gay lobby groups represent the values of the average Ontario parent? Did McGuinty or Wynne ever ask you for your input?

One stunning example of this Trojan horse tactic appears on p. 16-17 where the EIE Strategy encourages school boards to celebrate the Gay Pride Parade as “equity-related work”:

To witness examples of what your kids would be exposed to if they attended theToronto Gay Pride Parade, click the following link. Warning: these images from the 2010 parade may be disturbing and offensive! Click here to view.

Why is the Ministry of Education encouraging schools to participate in the Gay Pride sex parade? A better question might be - does Premier McGuinty think he’s running a Ministry of Education, or a Ministry of Indoctrination? Is he focused on helping your kids read, write and do arithmetic? Or on controlling their thoughts?

Beyond “tolerance” of the homosexual lifestyle, to “acceptance”?

The McGuinty/Wynne EIE Strategy provides a definition of diversity which includes the dubious constructs of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” amongst innocuous characteristics like race, religion and language. On page 2 (shown right), we see, in her own words, that Kathleen Wynne demands “embracing diversity” and “moving beyond tolerance to acceptance”.

Does this mean that the homosexual lifestyle must be “accepted” by students as normal, natural and healthy - not just tolerated? Remember - we just demonstrated that Wynne’s EIE Strategy document encourages schools to “celebrate” the Gay Pride Parade (which is all about gay lifestyles).

Further evidence, in the Ministry’s own words, is the fact that the EIE Strategy requires that schools “value” the “full range of our differences”.

Will educators interpret this to mean your children must fully “value” everything about a same-sex attracted person, including their lifestyle and romantic relationships?

If engineering “acceptance” in students is the intent of the McGuinty/Wynne EIE Strategy, that represents a frontal assault on the moral & religious values of a majority of parents, and a trampling of their parental rights.

The Poison Pill: the “Inclusive Education” formula

Arguably the most insidious statement in the EIE document, which all publicly funded school boards will be required to implement, is a formula provided within its definition of “Inclusive Education”. School boards are to measure whether or not they have achieved “inclusive education” by assessing whether “students see themselves reflected in their curriculum” and in “their physical surroundings”.

Will this be interpreted by educators to mean that gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transsexual, two-spirited and questioning students must “see themselves reflected in their curriculum” and in “their physical surroundings” (ie. classroom, hallway, special events)”? The answer to this important question seems to be given in a related Ministry document that provide EIE guidelines (see below):

This formula for judging “inclusive education” is a danger. It is a Trojan horse by which pro-homosexualist educators may attempt to justify violating the right of parents to direct the moral/religious belief system of their own children, as it regards sexual morality.

Bringing gay-activist organizations into the classroom

Below is another recommendation to schools for “equity related work”, contained in the EIE Strategy document. On page 16, it suggests bringing adult, homosexual-activists into the schools to counsel gender-confused students:

On page 27 of the EIE Guidelines for Policy Development & Implementation document, it instructs schools to set up Gay/Straight Alliances:

This raises many serious questions for parents. Will schools ask parents for permission before sending your kids to a gay-activist group? Will you even be notified that your minor children are participating in such a group? What if your heterosexual son or daughter is just experiencing a transient period of confusion about sexuality (something that is normal for many adolescents and eventually passes without the need for intervention)? Could participation in such a group or school event actually increase his or her confusion, and become the catalyst for experimentation with homosexuality? Should schools have the right to potentially encourage children into a lifestyle that is dangerous to their health and which carries dramatically higher rates of HIV infection, anal cancers, Hepatitis B&C, chronic diahrrea and many other risks? Isn't it legitimate to question if this is not a form of child abuse?

Creating gender identity confusion via LBGTTIQ-focused curriculum

The "Guidelines for Implementation" document is one of the three main parts of the overall EIES. This is the document which provides schoolboards with the guidelines for how to implement their individual EIE policies. On page 89 of the "Guidelines for Implementation" document, it asks teachers to deny the biological reality of being either male or female by injecting the idea that being male or female is merely a "social construct" that is "assigned" to us at birth. We can "put on" a different gender, so to speak, whenever we desire, just like putting on a different coat. This radical ideology of the McGuinty government sets itself squarely against Christian anthropology, science and the values system of most people and cultures throughout the world.

On page 90, the deconstruction of humanity continues by asserting the ideology of LGBTTIQ, which holds that human beings do not exist merely as male and female, but that there are additional human genders which include lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual or two-spirited, intersexed and queer or questioning.

We recognize of course that the folly of this ideology lies in confusing the behaviour and subjective "feelings" of people, with innate characteristic like skin colour and race .

In fact, the McGuinty government passed a new law on February 1, 2010 (Bill 157), as part of the EIE Strategy, which some fear could see students offered “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” counselling behind their parents’ back. The legislation requires board employees to provide the child with contact information to receive professional support when he or she has been the victim of “homophobic bullying”. This counselling is normally provided by practicing homosexuals. In its documents, the ministry specifically mentions "the Lesbian Gay Bi Trans Youth Line” as one example of a number for teachers to provide students.

Bill 157, The Keeping Our Kids Safe at School Act, makes it mandatory for school staff to report incidents of inappropriate student behaviour, such as bullying, to principals. However, while the law also requires principals to report incidents to a victim’s parents, it includes an important exception. A training video for schools on implementing the new legislation explains that principals must notify a victim's parents, "unless it is decided that doing so would cause the victim further harm.”. Press the video player below to hear it in the Ministry’s own words. It is an excerpt from the official training video.

Is it possible that “harm” might be employed as a justification to keep parents in the dark? What happens if a principal decides the child will be ‘harmed’ by a parent’s belief that homosexuality is disordered? The ministry training video, in fact, gives an example of an incident of “homophobic bullying” which, it suggests, the principal should not report to the parents. Should schools have the power to potentially push your children into identifying as homosexual?

Homophobia: a propaganda tactic to marginalize, intimidate and silence people of faith

Over the past 10 years, gay-activists have succeeded in making the invented term, “homophobia”, a household word. The gay lobby routinely uses the term to attack sincere Christians who harbour no animosity whatsoever toward same-sex attracted persons, but simply believe that the act is disordered, unnatural, sinful or harmful to the homosexual him/herself. Even when the sincere Christian publicly states their love and respect “for the sinner but not the sin”, they are still demonized as “homophobes”. For instance, the Catholic Church teaches that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “can never be approved”. At the same time, the Catholic Church provides more care and hospital beds to gay AIDS patients than any other institution on the planet. Yet, the Church is vilified by the gay lobby as “homophobic”. To see an example of such vilification by the “International Day Against Homophobia” brochure, click here. This campaign has been adopted by many Ontario school boards, including at least one Catholic Board.

The EIE Strategy uses the term “homophobia” throughout its documents and policies. The first problem that pro-family Ontarians have with this term, is that it’s invented. It’s not a true mental illness as the euphemism suggests, but pure political rhetoric, designed to humiliate a perceived “enemy” of the gay lobby. Therefore, it should be dropped. The second objection to its inclusion in school board policies, is that the definition of “homophobia” provided by the McGuinty/Wynne EIE strategy is worded far too broadly and provides no exception for sincerely held religious or moral beliefs:

Might a religious or moral disagreement with homosexual acts be interpreted by school administration as “disparaging” or “a negative bias” towards people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered? Could a desire by parents to shield their young children from being exposed to what they sincerely believe to be an immoral lifestyle, be interpreted by educators as "a negative bias" or "disparaging"? Could pro-family teachers, students and parents end up being labelled as “homophobes” because of this policy? Is it possible that after being bombarded with pro-gay messages in school, your son or daughter will some day come home and call you a 'bigotted homophobe'? Let's take the question further - is that the policy's goal?

A third problem we have with this definition of homophobia is that it implies that all people who hold a "negative" moral view about homosexual acts, do so out of hostility or hatred, towards same-sex attracted persons. That cannot be farther from the truth for the vast majority of us who identify as pro-family. Out of genuine love for the same-sex attracted person, we want what is best for him/her physically, emotionally and spiritually. The medical, social and scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that the homosexual lifestyle is destructive to those who engage in it. To turn a blind eye to these facts, and simply allow, or even encourage children, to take on these risks, is far from genuine love. Who loves more? The parent who rigidly watches that their son doesn't cross the busy road? Or the parent who tells him, "Cross the road whenever you like, son- it's safe!"?

The EIE Guidelines for Policy Development and Implementation document contains some eye-brow raising instructions. It suggests that “selection criteria” for promotions of school board employees should include “skills related to equity and inclusive education”. Could this mean that an Evangelical Christian or a Muslim teacher, for example, who is known to consider homosexual acts as sinful, would be disqualified from consideration for selection or career advancement?

Could this ever lead to a situation where teachers are pressured to act against their conscience or religious beliefs, in order to become compliant with “inclusive education principles”? Those who say no, ought to consider the fact that when gay-activists were pushing to legalize same-sex “marriage”, they reassured Canadians that gay marriage would “never impact the daily lives of heterosexuals”. Yet, just five years later, parents are facing Gay/Straight Alliances in their children’s schools and kindergarteners bringing home library books portraying two lesbian mommies and two homosexual dads. Should we accept more reassurances from the same people?

What about the "protection clause" for Catholic Boards?

Some concerned Catholics who've contacted their local Catholic trustee have been re-assured that there's nothing to worry about. The Trustees have pointed them to page 13 of the EIE Strategy which says that: "The strategy is to be implemented within the context of the Education Act, which affirms the constitutional rights of Catholic... rights holders in Ontario."

Unfortunately that assurance is suspect for several reasons. First of all, we must remember that Dalton McGuinty, the man behind the EIE Strategy, is the same dissident Catholic who in 2004, wrote a letter to the Durham Catholic School Board chastising them for not allowing "gay" student, Marc Hall, to bring his homosexual lover to the Catholic school's prom. At the time, the Catholic School Board had the same constitutional right to freedom of religion, alluded to on page 13 above. Yet, McGuinty, the co-architect of today's EIE Strategy, believed that despite that very clear constitutional right, the Board still had to allow the scandal of two homosexuals attending the prom as open lovers. In light of that response from McGuinty, is it reasonable for the Trustee to put his faith in that paragraph?

The Trustee may feel fully confident in his response of "Don't worry about it". The problem is that such trustees likely do not understand the reality of how inappropriate materials actually enter the school system - under the radar, via individual educators and/or administrators who have a pro-homosexual agenda. How else to explain that some Ontario Catholic High Schools already have student Gay Pride clubs and Gay/Straight Alliances that promote a lifestyle in conflict with Church teaching? Such individual educators/administrators are present in Catholic school systems just as they are in general society. To them, this EIE Strategy will facilitate their bringing in more resources that are incompatible with Catholic teaching: for example, books which portray homosexual family structures on par with heterosexual marriage; or anti-homophobia campaigns and "gay" speakers which have the effect of lumping ALL people who regard homosexual acts as sinful, under the category of "homophobe" and "hateful".

This "protection clause" serves more as a distraction to throw off the scent of Catholic Bishops whose warning bells might go off when some of the pro-homosexual activism embedded within the Strategy is eventually brought to their attention. It is a clever tactic, designed to lull into blissful ignorance, Catholic leaders who might have the power to shut down this dangerous EIE Strategy. Furthermore, the trustees who give a "Don't worry about it - we're protected" reply, are under the false impression that the Catholic Bishops have directly read, and as St. Paul alludes, "tested" the EIE Strategy. Not true. Most of Ontario's Catholic Bishops have largely entrusted this task to bureaucratic delegates like the Institute for Catholic Education (ICE). Unfortunately, ICE has a long history of conforming to secular attitudes in the area of human sexuality. In short, the Bishops might be taking very bad advice from their curriculum advisors.

It is theoretically possible to implement an EIE Strategy which conforms to Catholic teaching. However, to our knowledge, it has not yet been done by any Board. Such an approach would necessarily require embedding written clauses, similar to the following, within each school board's EIE Policy:

Whenever the topic of homosexuality (or the existence of homosexual family structures) is discussed, the teacher MUST clearly present section 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in it's entirety. That section states:

Section 2358 should also be presented immediately following 2357. It states in part: "They [same-sex attracted persons] must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. This provides a well-rounded message of Catholic belief and pastoral approach surround the question of homosexuality. Note: under no circumstances will section 2358 be presented as if it contradicts or supercedes section 2357. Both sections complement one another: truth, in harmony with compassion.

Under no circumstances will external organizations which promote messages or defend lifestyles that contradict the Church's teaching about homosexuality, be invited to give presentations, classroom lessons, or to serve as counselling referrals for Catholic students. Gay/Straight Alliances and Gay Pride clubs (which are normally associated with an embracing of the gay lifestyle) are strictly forbidden.

Whenever a potential need for youth counselling in areas of sexual identity confusion or same-sex attraction, the parent must be notified before any referral is given by school staff. If the parent agrees to counselling, only resources totally faithful to Catholic teaching on homosexuality and marriage can be provided. Examples include the COURAGE support group, COURAGE DVDs, NARTH psychologists or other Christian psychologists who agree with magisterial teaching on these matters.

In our opinion, the belief that McGuinty’s EIE Strategy can be implemented “within the context of Catholic teaching”, is something like the patient who accepts a cancerous organ for transplantation into his body, and “hopes” that it will not metastasize. The problem is that EIE Strategy is fundamentally flawed and it will be extremely difficult to remove the gay agenda from within it.

What gay activists are saying about the EIE strategy...

Don't take it from us, here are words of praise for the EIE strategy, from gay activists themselves, often times admitting that this policy will help them bring gay activism into Catholic and public schools:

“… this new equity initiative that’s coming out, we feel that’s the backbone that gives us the permission to do that [come out as gay teachers in Catholic schools].”Source: The Catholic Register, December 12, 2010, ‘Gay teachers network aims to recruit Catholics’

Catholic high school student, Leanne Iskander, who self-identifies as a lesbian, demanded a full-out, no Catholic teaching involved Gay Straight Alliance, and justified her demands by pointing to the Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board’s EIE policy. In the name of "Equity", she marched in Toronto's 2011 Gay Pride Parade. She was also named the Co-grand Marshall of the Gay Pride Parade.

EGALE's website even promotes the Catholic template version of the EIE as a positive thing. EGALE is the lobby group which successfully coordinated and funded lawsuits against the true definition of marriage.Source: http://mygsa.ca/SampleSchoolBoardPolicy

Conclusion

In the final analysis, McGuinty’s new strategy document has less to do with equity and inclusivity, and more to do with thought control and social engineering. Clearly, this EIE Strategy conceals a gay agenda with the goal of bringing about a pro-gay sexual revolution through the indoctrination of the next generation of children.

In our view, the EIE Strategy is so radicalized throughout its entire structure, that it cannot be tweaked or retooled. It can only be scrapped and started over without the current government’s sexual revolution ideology.

Parents are encouraged to protect their inherent rights, not to mention the moral integrity of their children, against McGuinty’s Equity & Inclusive Education propaganda.